TASVideos

Posted: 8/9/2022 1:29 AM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

For now, I only have a comment on number 3: I don't think we should accept SRAM that isn't obtainable through normal/TAS play (i.e. via hex editing in max stats that wouldn't be obtainable otherwise). While I understand the argument (and potential time benefit to the author) of being able to manually create an SRAM file that would be possible to achieve through normal play, I personally feel that we should still restrict SRAM anchored movies to provide verification movies. I realize this may require more work from the author's position, but it would simplify judging. If a judge has the verification movie inputs, it's more readily determinable that the utilized SRAM is legitimate. If, however, verification inputs are not provided/unknown, the judge would then be tasked with first verifying the legitimacy of the SRAM before consideration of the submission in question could even begin. Much like Samsara, I tend to lean toward a wider acceptance of runs for publication, but there does have to be a line somewhere. Hypothetical example; if i hex edit a savegame file for a DOS game to provide an longer than legitimately achievable invulnerability time, I could breeze through a game much faster than without that ability. So if i provide a run that has that savegame situation without any verification inputs, the judge would first have to determine if that ability is achievable normally before they can even start judging the run submitted. Even if someone provides a manually created SRAM while claiming it's indeed possible to yield that save information via real play, it still falls to the judge to verify that claim if there is no verification movie. TL:DR In my opinion, SRAM should only be accepted with verification movies provided that create said SRAM state. The impetus for proving legit SRAM should be on the author, not on the judges.

Posted: 7/20/2022 12:55 AM
(Edited: 8/15/2022 1:22 AM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

As noted in the submission text, I've already had a chance to review this run and could not find any improvements in routing or optimization. Movment controls are rather limited and many platforming actions that are common in modern games are not an option here: i.e. jumping to/from ladders, jumping across screen borders, changing direction/speed mid-jump. In the run, there are a few frame perfect movements/jumps that would be rather difficult for a human, but I won't say impossible for a human. The run uses death to save time; and when death warping, NYMX does a good job of utilizing death by falling off the screen as opposed to falling onto a platform. Falling from the screen results in less time required to regain control with the next life compared to dying by a fall onto a platform. Frankly, this is an impressive game from the standpoint of it being a game that was published in a magazine and meant to be typed into the C64 by the reader themselves. It's a solid run, and appears acceptable to me. The ROM/disk image used in this run is a disk image containing the programs from Compute! Gazette magazine Issue 79 (January 1990). Interesting side note on that particular issue: there is an article on Neural Networks, Artificial Intelligence, and the future of computing. EDIT: For anyone interested, here's the pages of the magazine with the game's code. (Sorry about the big images, but I figured it'd be harder to read if I shurnk them any.)

Posted: 7/8/2022 7:29 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

feos wrote:

Being restricted to replay files would result in hacking around this restriction by providing dummy files, but we'd also have to do something about movie length to make it present some actual info about the duration of the event in question. That sounds even more hacky.

(emphasis mine) Regarding length of run: If a dummy movie file is going to be present anyway, we could make it from all blank inputs that was as many frames long as needed to show the appropriate time frame.

Posted: 7/7/2022 2:08 AM
(Edited: 7/8/2022 11:32 AM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

Memory wrote:

As somebody who doesn't really know this game, was the NOVICE mode used or not? Kinda hard to tell from reading the text.

No. Novice mode was not used.

Posted: 7/4/2022 12:08 AM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

I support finding a way to do this. I find the idea of a separate publication type/area of site (as described in the "future" section of Samsara's post) to be an ideal goal. We need to find a way to officially recognize/publish these showcase runs that otherwise can't be processed through our standard judging process due to the need for extra hardware or external data only possible at such a live event. In my opinion, TASing, at its core, is effectively answering the question, "What can be done in/to this game with a sequence of perfectly timed button presses?" While we typically answer this question along the lines of "beating games really fast, often in entertaining ways," these showcases are simply offering different answers to that same question. Unfortunately, some of these showcases use unscripted data from an outside source (live chat, or even human input like Savestate's in the SGDQ 2022 example), which isn't information we can "verify" in an input file. HOWEVER, the results that are seen on the screen at the event are still the result of button presses processed through the controller ports. These runs stand therefore as valid answers (albeit very complex ones) to the question of "What can be done in/to this game with a sequence of perfectly timed button presses?". We need to officially celebrate them by some means of inclusion on the site (beyond gruefood).

Posted: 6/30/2022 12:18 AM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

Thank you, Noxxa, for all your work!

Posted: 6/17/2022 6:17 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

To put my opinion as concisely as possible: I like the idea of allowing in-game codes into standard if they ADD to gameplay, but not if they take away from gameplay. I think external codes should always be limited to Moons, with one hypothetical exception: In the event that there is a game out there (or will be in the future) that has a programming bug present which prevents a normal win condition from being achieved; I'm fine with an external code being used to bypass the bug and allow succesful completion the game. I think that only this one situation should be eligible for standard. Ideally, the external code here would only allow bypassing the bug and not enable other features that allow for skipping other gameplay.

Posted: 6/1/2022 6:40 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

feos wrote:

I feel if we call the branch label "minimum jumps" it would be neater and more informative at the same time, while still being accurate. Sorry it took me so long to raise this question, but what does everyone think?

Objectively, "Minimum A Presses" and "Minimum Jumps" are not guaranteed to always be equivalent (though they may be in this case, I haven't looked that closely at the input to confirm). Further, a "Minimum A Frames" run could be another potential variant between two runs with otherwise equal number of A button presses. Or, in theory, it may be possible to have a run with a greater total number of A button presses yet presenting a lower total number of frames with A being pressed. My opinion on this submission/publicaiton: I agree that "Minimum Jumps" is more readily understandable as what to expect when watching this run. As this run currently is BOTH the known "Minimum A Presses" and "Minimum Jumps", either branch name would be valid. I'm going to make an assumption (because I'm too lazy to go count A frames) that this submission also likely qualifies as "Minimum A Frames." If someone someday manages to make an acceptable TAS where at least one of the 3 minimums is present, but not all 3; we may need to consider rebranching as appropriate.

Posted: 5/10/2022 2:31 PM
(Edited: 5/31/2022 5:50 PM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

MESHUGGAH wrote:

Also I had no idea that an A2600 TAS can sync on both NTSC and PAL ROM.

This may not be the case for all games, but it does work with this one. The frames are just longer in PAL mode. I've run into something similar before; I think it was with a C64 game (EDIT: If I remember correctly, it was Monty on the Run for C64. Movement synced, but RNG didn't.). It would be interesting to try this on other games as well.

Posted: 5/9/2022 10:36 PM
(Edited: 5/31/2022 5:50 PM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

In reviewing this run, I was able to implement some movement improvements scattered through the run. Stage 1 (16 Frames Saved): Started moving earlier and managed to get the 10th hit on the skeleton a bit earlier to move to stage two. Stage 2 (0 Frames Saved): Different attack pattern to avoid the axe. Otherwise no frames difference. Stage 3 (14 Frames Saved): Better movement (more diagonals) to exit the maze faster. Stage 4 (45 Frames Saved): Better movement (more diagonals) to exit the maze faster. Stage 5 (2 Frames Lost): Unfortunately I lost two frames here and can't figure out why. Even just copying the original requires adding two frames. The player character must move up to y-position=15 while touching the freed boy to end the game. Total improvement = 73 Frames Here is an updated .bk2. ~~And a temp encode. https://youtu.be/kZIQXhatvHo Once I have coauthorship/editing rights on the submission, I'll change the main encode to this one.~~ Here's a side-by-side GIF comparison of the run before and after improvements.

I also discovered a minor ROM issue. Checking the ROM used for this run using goodtools yields "Ghost Manor (1983) (Xonox) [o1].a26" The [o1] indicates that the ROM is an overdump ROM. For those who may not know, overdump ROMs have extra unused data beyond the actual game data in the ROM file itself. This extra data is meaningless and doesn't impact the game in any way. Unfortunately, goodtools does not have a [!] marked ROM for this game indicating a known proper dump of the game. There is a ROM in the goodtools database that's not labeled with any notations "Ghost Manor (1983) (Xonox).a26" but this ROM only seems to contain the first stage of the game (it resets to the beginning once the spears are collected). There is a PAL version that has the [!] known good dump indicator; interestingly the inputs from this run sync perfectly on the PAL version but the overall play is slower due to the framerate differences. Due to these issues with the ROM, I think the overdump version is likely the best to use for this game, as it allows a full game NTSC run.

Posted: 5/3/2022 1:26 AM
(Edited: 5/24/2022 4:31 PM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

I think it's great you took the idea to the next level by showing off as many animations as possible while doing it in actual gameplay from standard starting positions. Too bad there's no way to show all animations in a single standard game. While this may not be publishable in Standard; if it doesn't qualify for Moon class, I think it falls solidly in line with the Playground. For the judge: On the note of playground... would my original run linked in this submission now also qualify for Playground?

Posted: 4/30/2022 7:43 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

A few ideas: "Unacceptable" "Currently unacceptable" "Unpublishable" "Unpublished" "Currently Unpublished" "Withheld" "Currently denied" "Denied" (though without "Currently" it's not much different than rejected.) "Vetoed" "Suppressed" (i kinda like this one. It may be suppressed now, but could come back in the future) "Inadmissable"

Posted: 4/28/2022 5:23 PM
(Edited: 5/15/2022 5:55 AM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

Well done! Throwing out a personal opinion here: If When this is accepted, I feel it should be accepted alongside the current run as a different branch (as opposed to obsoleting the current run), because the bat presence/manipulation introduces significantly different gameplay possibilities which yield a completely new approach the run that is simply unavailable at the easiest difficulty. The differences result in completely different routes and item use. If this is done, the current publication would likely need its publication ammended to include "easy difficulty" or something similar as its branch.

Posted: 4/26/2022 4:57 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

While it would still be my personal preference, if doing so would create a greater problem, then the alphabetizing doesn't need changed. I only suggested it in the first place due to that method being the standardized way for alpabetizing titles in English (which, while others languages are present, is our site's primary language). The exact order of the lists isn't critical either way; because, as was already mentioned, we also have search functions to find things.

Posted: 4/26/2022 4:13 PM
(Edited: 4/26/2022 4:21 PM)

Post subject: "The" in game titles.

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

When it comes to the listing of games in our system, all games that start with the word "The" are currently placed in the "T" section of alphabetical lists. For example, in the NES tab of the Games page, there are currently 48 entries that start with the word "The." These are all in the "T" section. I think we should we consider renaming these game entries by having "The" moved to the end of the game entry (i.e. changing The Goonies into Goonies, The) so that these games show up in the alphabetical list based on the first main word in the title instead of the word "The"? This is a standard way of alphabetizing titles in various other areas of life--one example being bibliographic notation. Using The Goonies as an example, instead of being listed after The Flintstones: The Surprise at Dinosaur Peak!, making this change would instead move it to being after Golgo 13: Top Secret Episode. Here is an example of such alphabatizing using NES games from Wikipedia. EDIT: If there's a way to have the games alphabatized the way I'm describing, but still displayed with "The" at the beginning of the name, that would also be fine. I just feel the alphabitizing needs to happen on the next word instead of "The."

Posted: 4/11/2022 9:06 PM
(Edited: 4/11/2022 9:08 PM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

I noticed that the recent run of Anarchy was published as (Europe) C64 instead of just C64 like all the other current publications. I'm assuming it was given this label because it's a PAL run. However, some other C64 publications also use PAL mode but aren't labeled this way. So, it made me wonder which of the following methods should be the appropriate way of labeling C64 runs? 1) Labeled as (Europe), (USA), etc. 2) Labeled as (NTSC), (PAL) 3) Not Labeled with anything other than just the system C64 (like all other current runs besides Anarchy). The reason I ask is due to how the site handles games that run equally well in both NTSC and PAL modes: We currently (and appropriately so, in my opinion) accept a run to be made in either mode--regardless of where the game was made/released--as long as it works, without introducing glitches. Runs are accepted this way because the real software/cartridges of such games will work on the real hardware of either region--unlike consoles (NES, Genesis, etc.) where it's typically not possible to play cartridge releases from one region on the opposite region system without physically modifying the system. Because of this policy, I contend that (if a label is even necessary in the frist place) option 2 above (PAL/NTSC) would be better than using location notation (USA/Europe). I am curious to hear other's thougts on such labeling.

Posted: 4/11/2022 6:47 PM
(Edited: 4/25/2022 10:20 PM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

Masterjun wrote:

I count 948 moves in this submission. Heh, my TAS attempt finished the game in 881 moves. But I want to see someone manage to manipulate RNG enough to get the minimum, 519 moves.

I've been messing around with the game a bit (mostly out of curiosity). While RNG can easily be manipulated to get a new tile spawn WHERE you want it, I have yet to determine exactly how the game decides WHAT value to give to the newly spawned tile. Thus far, when a 4 spawns appears to be based more on the number of moves than it does which moves are taken or when they are performed. For example, waiting a frame or two will change where a new tile spawns, but it will not change what value that newly spawned tile has. Even delaying moves earlier than the one prior to the new spawn doesn't seem to change the value of the tile; at least in my testing. Unfortunately, I've yet to find a simple move counter of any type in RAM that determines 4 spawns. I tried to look into the source code to see how new tiles were determined, but I'm not a programmer and couldn't figure it out. Perhaps someone with more coding experience can. Having a tracelogger would likely help in determining how the game decides on 4's or 2's. For what it's worth, freezing the 4-byte value at RAM address 0x109 with a value of 0x56E509FE will always produce a 4 on the next spawned tile. If any one of the 4 bytes isn't frozen, new spawns may have a 2. Having this value frozen at the beginning of the game does not yield two 4s. One of the original spawned tiles will still be a 2. Regarding other RAM addresses (in case anyone decides to investigate things further), the value of the individual squares on the board are stored in 2-byte RAM addresses from 0x0A54 through 0x0A72. The sequence of addresses goes from 0x0A54 in the upper left corner, then downward in the column, then top down in the next column, and so forth with 0x0A72 in the bottom right corner. TL:DR Unfortunately, I don't forsee a way to manipulate enough newly spawned tiles to be a value of 4 in order to make that 519-minimum-move run even possible.

Posted: 3/29/2022 10:09 PM
(Edited: 6/15/2022 1:43 AM)

Post subject: Updated .bk2 for submission

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

Here is an updated .bk2 for this run. Would someone with the power, please update the submission file. Overall 1235 frames were saved over the original run. These resulted from a combination of more efficient movement, different routes, and variations in RNG manipulation. ~~I'll update the preview video and submission notes with slightly more detailed info as soon as I'm able.~~ Updated. This submission is now ready for judging again.

Posted: 2/26/2022 10:43 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

feos wrote:

Thoughts about optimality. If submissions that fail to beat a published movie are just sent to playground, there's zero incentive to make better movies, and it can be flooded with low effort stuff that's basically the same. Even tho I don't see the need for obsoletion in playground, I think we should only send there movies that are better than whatever already exists in playground. If it's slower than that or a published movie of the same goal, it doesn't allow us to showcase any niche goals better, and it's better to just reject.

I mostly agree with this. There's no reason to have 10 different people with Playground runs of the same category doing roughly the same thing. I'd rather see the Playground be more a variety of unique content for a given game than soething that ammounts to little more than a congested leaderboard of similar runs having slightly different times. However, if two runs that would otherwise be in the same niche category for a game manage to achieve that goal using significantly differing methods (or the slower of the two contains an interesting techinique that isn't seen in other runs in the Playground), it may be wise to keep both runs in order to archive the differing/interesting techniques.

Posted: 2/22/2022 10:19 PM
(Edited: 2/22/2022 10:19 PM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

Unfortunately this probably depends on the specific game and its community more than a generality. I would expect that death skips would probably more favorably looked upon here than in general game commnuities or their associated speedrun commnuities. But that doesn't mean that those communities would be against death skips. It's just going to be a subjective situation for each individual game.

Posted: 2/19/2022 11:42 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

Yes. I had read the OP. I guess i just misunderstood how things would be curated in the Playground. If anyone can set a submission status to be a Playground run, how is the list curated? Without some means of "rejecting" or removing runs that shouldn't be present, the list has no effective limits. I'm just trying to understand how this will be handled. And if I've missed something in the various pages of posts or discord discussions that answered this already, please forgive my lack of memory for everything that has occurred in these discussions and just point me to the answer instead of questioning whether or not I've been paying attention simply because i misunderstood one aspect of the entire concept.

Posted: 2/19/2022 10:55 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

I feel we need to consider the concept of unpublication in regards to the Playground. Currently, we don't unpublish any currently published runs. Instead we try (or hope) to obsolete them with a new run that corrects the reason that a run was erroneously published to begin with. Should we consider having the ability to outright unpublish/delete runs from the Playground if a situation arises where something shouldn't have been allowed in there to begin with? If so, would this be part of the community curation our would it need to be main site staff? Hopefully there's never a situation where something would need removed, but it's worth considering--just in case.

Posted: 2/18/2022 5:18 PM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

CoolKirby wrote:

Looks like the video embed module doesn't support Vimeo, but clicking the (Link to video) will allow you to watch the temp encode.

I updated the temp encode with a youtube version so the embed feature works.

Posted: 2/2/2022 3:57 AM

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

OmnipotentEntity wrote:

When I use posts since last visit search, it's sorting in chronological order, rather than reverse chronological order as it was in the previous iteration of the site. Furthermore, it's returning in terms of posts rather than topics. Also because my session is apparently infinite, I now have 50 pages of unread posts, going back 23 days, despite having visited the site several times since early January. I'm sure there's something I'm doing wrong, but I have no idea what.

I also have had these problems, and i similarly would like the "most recent" list be topics instead of posts. Granted, i haven't spent much time exploring on the new site to see if there are settings to change this presentation. But the fact that the site doesn't seem to recognize when i actually last visited (and only show posts since then) is rather annoying.

Posted: 1/29/2022 8:17 PM
(Edited: 1/29/2022 8:19 PM)

DrD2k9

He/Him

Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player (2300)

Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1133
Location: US

I don't really have a problem with the name "Playground." But for the sake of ideas. We could consider something simple simple like "Open Class." Other ideas: -Freeform/Freedom -Whiteboard/Chalkboard -Independent Class -Carte Blanche -Unrestrained -Emancipated -Autonomous

Posts for DrD2k9